The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

God has not changed His definition of marriage

Much has already been written about Pres Nelson’s YSA devotional he gave last Tuesday at BYU. Pres Nelson made some interesting assertions during his talk, like the POX was “motivated by love” for the children, and the reversal of the POX was “motivated by love” for the children. He also said that “prophets aren’t popular.” This was said by a prophet that lives a very comfortable lifestyle. He travels in a private jet, is treated like a rock star everywhere he goes, and has received nothing but adulation from the members of the church for the past 40 years.

I’d like to concentrate on one particular paragraph. This is from the 17 Aug post at “thechurchnews” web site.

For example, let’s consider the definition of marriage. In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.

But if we look at the church’s “newsroom” website that was published later, probably on Sept 19th, that same paragraph is missing a sentence

For example, let’s consider the definition of marriage. In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.

“God has not changed His definition of marriage” is missing from the second, more recent publication. This is not the first time that words have been changed before publication, but it is the first time I remember a talk being published in two different places (Church News and Newsroom) being different. You can watch the talk online and see him say the words. (see 28:43 in the video) Also I don’t know of any prophet in my lifetime having his words changed. Its one thing to change the rouge 70 (Elder Poelman) or a hard nose Apostle (Elder Packard), but the Prophet? (See Peggy Stack’s history of changes in the SLTrib article here)

So why the change? Did correlation not review his talk before hand, or are his talks exempt? Who do you think pointed out to Pres Nelson that God did change his definition of marriage in 1890 (although it took the church another 20 years to actually implement His changed definition.

I personally think someone pointed out to Pres Nelson that the modern day polygamist were going to make a big deal out of this sentence, and use it to show that the LDS church has changed the definition of marriage contrary to Gods commandments, and even the current LDS prophet agrees!

31 thoughts on “God has not changed His definition of marriage”

There is article on the exponent https://www.the-exponent.com/mary-jane-wilford-woodruff-and-the-267-dead-wives/ written by a woman whose family proudly claim an ancestor who baptised Wilford Woodruff who later became prophet. This woman was looking at her family records on this man and found when he was 68 he married a 14 year old girl, who then bore him 5 children, the first born within a year. The blog also tells how when Wilford Woodruff was in his 70s for his birthday he would have random women sealed to him in marriage, as a birthday present to himself, totaling 267 wives.

This week Pres Nelson claimed “The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.”

I am struggling to reconcile these 3 things. I just don’t believe that a God who loves us all including women, would define within marriage acceptable to him, a 68 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl; a 70 year old man having him self married to 267 random women who have never even met him, but two gay people who love each other he can not include.
This is not an eternal truth!
Do they teach critical thinking at BYU? Are they allowed to apply it to the prophets devotional.
Pres Nelson is claiming his definition of marriage is an eternal truth
He also claimed a medical proceedure as an eternal truth, which a number of medical people over at BCC say is not correct either
Will have used up his credibility, and moral authority soon..

The theological balance I think he was trying to express is how god can be eternal and unchanging yet we need a prophet in our day to give revelation for us today. And those new revelations change the old ones, like when Peter and the early church dropped kosher requirements or circumcision and began to teach and baptize gentiles.

I think you can rationalize changes in marriage definitions to include polygamy and then to exclude them that way.

Most likely through he believes that polygamy is still included in eternal marriage even if the policy today is that we don’t practice it. Many members still consider the doctrine to support polygamy even if our policy does not.

I would love to know what the prophet says we should do about climate change more than marriage. I wonder if we are focused on the wrong problems. Why would god care so much about gay marriage when we are causing mass extinction. But I am a liberal biologist so that is my worldview.

Maybe I’m being a little too cautious with an alias (I comment here frequently), but Geoff, as as grad student/instructor at BYU, I can tell you that several of my colleagues were quite upset with, and critical of, the devotional.

I normally don’t comment much, however on this particular subject, I must. God has not changed His mind on marriage or anything for that matter. Marriage is STILL 1 man and 1 woman. Don’t like what I have to say? Too bad. That’s God’s law and He isn’t going to change It. Period

I think that it is a mistake to debate whether “God’s definition of marriage” has changed, and then bring up the changing doctrines and policies of the LDS church as evidence. When God walked on the earth, he only gave one definition of marriage:

Matt. 19:3-6
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This scripture doesn’t get quoted as much as I think it should, and to meet it seems like that’s because, while it supports mainstream Mormonism’s position on homosexuality, it runs askance of the cavalier attitude toward divorce that prevails in the church today. Still, it’s the only God-given definition of marriage that we’ve got.

Irregardless of the marriage message, which is less than candid and filled with inaccurate generalizations, there is the issue of its theme. If you have a huge “captive” audience of young members why not talk about your vision for the Church? Instead you continue to obsess over LGBTQ+ issues. A divisive and counterproductive issue.

I don’t know if you caught it, but it looks like the line was added back in the Newsroom version. So, it seems like the BYU version of the speech is the only one that still is missing the line. ( https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/ ) I don’t know how to interpret this: does this mean the church is definitely doubling down on this statement?

To me, the omission doesn’t seem like an intentional change in message, because of the line that follows in either version:

From the “original” version (as spoken, and on Newsroom)

For example, let’s consider the definition of marriage. In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.

God has also not changed His law of chastity. Requirements to enter the temple have not changed. And our desire for there to be love at home and harmony between parent and child has not changed.

To the “intermediate” version (now on BYU Speeches, at least as of the writing of this comment.

For example, let’s consider the definition of marriage. In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.

God has also not changed His law of chastity. Requirements to enter the temple have not changed. And our desire for there to be love at home and harmony between parent and child has not changed.

The word “also” in the line following (“God has also not changed His law of chastity”) implies there’s something that comes before in terms of what God has not changed. So, whether this is stated explicitly, as Nelson did in the original version, or it is implied, it certainly seems like the statement is designed to be there.

If we read the BYU Speech as intended to be the final message, I don’t think it creates any strong change in doctrine or theological interpretation. Rather, at best, it just creates intentional ambiguity to allow member to read what they want here. You have a line saying “in the beginning, marriage was ordained by God” next to a sentence saying, “And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.”

Regardless of if you explicitly say God has not changed the definition of marriage, the two preceding lines provide enough for someone to infer that marriage as ordained by God has been continuously defined as being between a man and a woman, notwithstanding what we know of polygamy.

Well I will say this the one and only true God above is just . Very clear in his 10 commandments as well sending his only son as a example of his love John 3:16 …Us humans all know the wrongs on this earth as well the lies fed and by who .. May the father I serve protect all his in Christ Jesus I ask ..Amen

The church still believes in polygamy—allowing men to be sealed to more than one wife when the first wife dies. It is clear the reason polygamy was abandoned was due to legality issues associated with its practice in the U.S. So, I don’t think it entirely truthful to claim we don’t believe in polygamy anymore.

I frankly think the church has it wrong when it comes to same-sex marriages. Ok, hold everybody to the same standard of chastity—
marriage first—but it doesn’t seem right to deny people the basic right of marriage and companionship. Leave the judging up to God in the next life.

Nelson’s statement regrading God’s definition of marriage not changing appears consistent to me with regards to both church doctrine and history. During the polygamy era, a marriage was still defined as between a man and a women; however, a man was permitted multiple such marriages. The definition didn’t change…just the number of applications.

Instead of assuming the worst in people, focusing on the negative, or trying to catch someone in their words, I’ve found that positive reinforcement of good actions is a much more effective mechanism for bringing about change. This observation may seem like a tangential comment, but I ask that you just ponder on it in relation to why and how you decide to post or comment in the bloggernacle or social media.It also works great with kids.

My problem with the “in the beginning” argument is that it typically doesn’t address the pragmatic issues with creating Adam and Eve (not Steve). Of course, there’s always the whole Creationism vs. Evolutionism and uncertainty around the mechanics of creation. Whatever the mechanics look like, if I were to create a new species from a single breeding pair that reproduced exclusively sexually, I would create both a male and female — not because I think male + female is morally superior — but because the success of my creation requires a valid breeding pair.

Then throw in that God seems to have included in His creation of Adam and Eve something in the inheritance patterns of humans that causes a small percentage to fit into the LGBT+ categories, and it using “God created us this way” as an argument against same sex marriage seems difficult to me.

Dr Cocoa, you repeat a common apologist argument but the church doesn’t teach it, nor agree with you. The church has been quite explicit that polygamy actually WAS a departure from marriage between one man/one woman, a departure that the Lord allowed, but a departure nonetheless. The church teaches that one man/one woman is the norm, but that polygamy was allowed as an exception to that for a time. It’s an abominable and false teaching but it’s what they say.

“I’ve found that positive reinforcement of good actions is a much more effective mechanism for bringing about change”

Since when? The most significant changes appear to have come in reaction to outrage on the part of members. Here is a common cycle throughout church history. The membership culture in the Mormon belt starts reacting increasingly negatively to a policy or teaching, church leaders find out what the common negative reactions are, they take their time to see if this is just a one-time outrage that fades and doesn’t come back or if it is a recurring outrage. If it fades, they don’t change. If it is recurring, then they try to make the subtlest and smallest changes possible to quell the negative reactions. In some situations, subtle, small changes don’t work, or the at least the leaders figure that they won’t work. So they make a change. It was that way with the reversal on the PoX policy. It was that way with two-hour church and home teaching. And it has been that way in the past. The leaders pay close attention to what critics say, and especially what friendly critics say (meaning, those who are active and believing, but aren’t afraid to point out things they don’t like). In fact it almost seems that so much of the fine-tuning that has been going on over the past few years has been in reaction to the thoughts and opinions of friendly critics. There are big changes that some friendly critics are hoping for that will probably not happen in the near future (or ever). They won’t accept the same-sex marriage in the church, and they won’t give women the priesthood.

Dr. Cocoa (not ending in -ccino…whew!) said, “I’ve found that positive reinforcement of good actions is a much more effective mechanism for bringing about change. ”

It is effective. But silence in the face of bad actions more often than not implies acceptance or agreement. And that is the problem in the church. So many people now claim to have been uncomfortable with the Priesthood/Temple ban. But they remained silent.

As long as the members of the LDS Church keep waiting for their leaders, they get the kind of church they deserve.

President Nelson is sealed to his first wife and his second wife. It is pretty clear that he plans to be married to both of them in the next life. Therefore, he still believes that polygamy is ordained of God. But like others have said, one man contracts a marriage with one women. Then, that same one man contracts a marriage with another one woman, then he contracts with another woman. These are separate contracts and each between one man and one woman. If he divorces one, it ends that contract, but not the other contracts. They are each separate contracts. The church has not changed it doctrine on polygamy one bit. It just doesn’t practice it currently. The current prophet does believe that it is an eternal law that he gets to keep both his wives.

But the church likes to keep people who find this polygamy idea abhorrent, so it talks out of both sides of it mouth. It says that God gives an exception at times for polygamy to be practices on earth. But it has never once come out and said that the practice in eternity is one man and only one woman and no extra contracts with other women. It has never said that men like president Nelson have to choose one out of the several wives. It has said that women who are sealed after death to more than one man will have to choose, or it kind of says, God will work it out. But there is no assumption that a woman in the next life will be living with three or so husbands.

Now, there was at least one prophet said that polygamy was a “mistake”. Pres. Hinckley. But he never really explained what he meant. Was it a mistake and sin on the part of Joseph Smith? Did he mean there will be no polygamy in the next life? Was Joseph simply mistaken in some of the ways he implemented it? Was Joseph’s failure to get Emma’s permission for each and every wife a mistake. Was the men choosing the wives, rather than the women choosing a husband as is done in some of the Mormon polygamous break offs the mistake? Pres. Hinckley never explained but left it to the members to guess what he meant.

Anna, Are you referring to Pres. Hinckley’s statement on Larry King Live on September 8, 1998 with regard to the practice of polygamy: “I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.”

Wondering, it was somewhere else, but I honestly don’t remember. I think another interview he gave.

I take his condemnation of it that you quoted above as condemning the current practice, not saying that it does not exist in the eternities, although again, he isn’t quite clear doctrinally what his condemnation of it means. Did he thing people like Pres Nelson will have to choose which wife they want to be with for eternity. I am just not quite clear, except that he doesn’t think we should be practicing it now.

Geoff you may want to look at kindly old Lorenzo Snow and his nine wives. He started pursuing his last wife when he was 52 and she was 12. Apparently concerned about the appearance of propriety they weren’t actually married until she was 16 and he of course was 56. She was clearly his favorite and he virtually ignored the first 8. She bore him his last child wen he was 86 and she was 46. See Wilford was a piker. it is interesting to compare his example with Josephs . None of his 35 wives ever bore him any children and with one exception none ever publicly conceded to having sexual intercourse with him The exception was Emily Partridge who 40years later said they had had ” carnal knowledge ” exactly one time . Whatever was going on in Nauvoo was alot different from what was going on in Utah

Not being from Utah I am not too familiar with examples of leaders behaving badly. My point though was that we could think God would be happy with this understanding of marriage but not be happy with gay couples who love each other being married.
As someone said above, buildup and hype for his devotional. What might young people need to hear from a prophet? World being destroyed by climate change, rising rates of inequality, no false assertions about God not approving of gay marriage.

Is there any scripture or revelation from God saying he doesn’t approve of gay marriage? Saying straight people should marry people of opposite sex does not mean gay people should not marry people of the same sex if they love them.

What a mess! Let’s look at the marriage/condoned sexual arrangements in the 4 standard works: Old Testament has monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, levirate marriage (widow’s brother-in-law’s duty to marry and impregnate her to get an heir), men and rights to female slaves, concubinage, female spoils of war (slaves or concubines), unmarried rape victim and attacker (duty to marry spelled out in Deuteronomy. In the New Testament, Jesus is very critical of divorce and says that there is no eternal marriage after the resurrection Matthew 22:30. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob says that monogamy is the rule, polygamy is an exception to raise up seed, David and Solomon committed whoredoms, which were abominable to the Lord. Then D&C 132 pulls a 180 and says that David and Solomon did not sin because the wives and concubines were given to them by the Lord. Then there is all kinds of procedures set forth for plural marriage (some that Joseph violated). Early Utah also had marriages of convenience where an infertile couple would have another man (one who had fathered lots of kids) sleep with the woman who was trying to get pregnant to see if that would work.

It seems to me that the definition of marriage has very much changed and is not even consistent in the scriptures themselves.